Iida Hiroya, Maehira Hiromitsu, Mori Haruki, Tani Masaji
Department of Surgery, Shiga University of Medical Science, Seta Tsukinowa-Cho, Otsu, Japan.
Asian J Endosc Surg. 2020 Oct;13(4):505-513. doi: 10.1111/ases.12785. Epub 2020 Jan 29.
The methods of liver parenchymal transection vary across institutions. In this study, we used a radiofrequency (RF) sealer (Aquamantys) as a hemostatic device during laparoscopic liver transection; we also evaluated the usefulness of RF sealers.
From April 2016 to May 2019, 113 consecutive laparoscopic hepatectomy patients, excluding patients with combined resection of other organs, were examined. Patient characteristics, operative factors, and postoperative complications were compared between the Cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA) + soft coagulation system (VIO) group; (n = 32) and the CUSA + Aquamantys group; (n = 81). The former underwent liver transection by CUSA and VIO from April 2016 to March 2017, while the latter underwent liver transection using CUSA and Aquamantys from April 2017 to May 2019.
The median difficulty score was significantly higher in the CUSA + VIO group (5.5 points vs 5.0 points; P = .04). Blood loss per unit area and the liver parenchymal transection speed were not significantly different between the groups. After propensity score matching, blood loss per unit area was similar between the groups, but the parenchymal transection speed of the CUSA + Aquamantys group was significantly higher (0.92 cm /min vs 0.64 cm /min; P = .017). Postoperative complications were similar between the groups.
In laparoscopic hepatectomy, hemostasis of the transection plane with an RF sealer did not reduce blood loss during parenchymal transection. However, the liver parenchymal transection speed was increased.
肝实质离断方法在不同机构有所不同。在本研究中,我们在腹腔镜肝离断术中使用射频(RF)闭合器(Aquamantys)作为止血装置;我们还评估了射频闭合器的实用性。
2016年4月至2019年5月,对113例连续的腹腔镜肝切除术患者进行了检查,排除了合并其他器官切除的患者。比较了Cavitron超声外科吸引器(CUSA)+软凝系统(VIO)组(n = 32)和CUSA+Aquamantys组(n = 81)的患者特征、手术因素和术后并发症。前者在2016年4月至2017年3月期间采用CUSA和VIO进行肝离断,而后者在2017年4月至2019年5月期间采用CUSA和Aquamantys进行肝离断。
CUSA+VIO组的中位难度评分显著更高(5.5分对5.0分;P = 0.04)。两组之间单位面积失血量和肝实质离断速度无显著差异。倾向评分匹配后,两组单位面积失血量相似,但CUSA+Aquamantys组的实质离断速度显著更高(0.92 cm/min对0.64 cm/min;P = 0.017)。两组术后并发症相似。
在腹腔镜肝切除术中,使用射频闭合器对离断面进行止血并不能减少实质离断期间的失血量。然而,肝实质离断速度提高了。